affiliate_yieldkit_list_transactions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it returns Transaction records with derived ageDays and that filtering is possible by window/programme/status. However, it does not cover default behavior, pagination, or ordering.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by concrete use cases and a pairing tip. No redundant wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 9 params, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides purpose and usage but lacks parameter details, default windows, and pagination behavior. It is adequate but not complete for a higher score.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the 9 parameters. It touches on from/to ('within a window'), programmeId ('specific programme'), and status (via listed statuses/examples), but leaves limit, cursor, offset, minAgeDays, and maxAgeDays unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it lists affiliate transactions on Yieldkit, enumerating status types (earned, pending, reversed, paid) and scope (window or programme). It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming Yieldkit and referring to get_earnings_summary for aggregates.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit user query examples ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?', 'show me reversed sales') and advises pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals, giving clear when-to-use and alternative guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.